get_leave_history

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a read-only query, what the history includes (leave types, date ranges, statuses), whether it is scoped to the current user or requires elevated permissions, or how results are ordered. The 'read' nature is only implied by the verb 'Get'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence is front-loaded and short, but the definition leaks raw docstring artifacts (':param', ':return') that add noise rather than value. It is adequately sized but not cleanly structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still spends its budget on a vague ':return: Leave history message'. Combined with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves meaningful gaps for even a simple single-parameter read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with one required parameter, so the description must compensate, and it barely does: the ':param emp_id: Employee ID' line only restates the parameter name. There is no format, source, or lookup guidance for obtaining a valid employee ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the leave history of an employee'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling get_employee_leave_balance, leaving the agent to guess which one answers a balance versus a history question.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_employee_leave_balance or apply_leave, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.